Many of you are well aware of another little firestorm that was ignited by a post that I did recently on what I consider to be a widening-divide between academic historians and the ‘blue-collar’ crowd. As noted, I have received a bunch of emails in support (a handful last night), but no one wishes to be posted in the Comments section as they know the original post was clipped for use as an example at a conference. I do appreciate all of their sentiments, but one gentleman emailed something that I feel inclined to share. On a related note, I had a very valued expert prove to me that I’m a noble guy, who still has a lot to learn. We’re both working on it. Here’s the email:

Dear Mr. Aubrecht,

Thank you for having the courage to stick up for the little guy. Although I think it is fair to say that your beef with Mr. Levin may have influenced your comments – by the way the two of you should really learn to get along, I think you both make the scene better – the spirit of your argument rings true. I am a retired park ranger, avid re-enactor, former round table president, and I have witnessed both sides of this divide. I fear that your post did not do your argument justice, as it was not framed with any definitive examples in support. So here is a list. It is meant to help you all examine yourselves. You may quote it freely, but I ask that you not post my personal information below as I do not want to end up being quoted at Mr. Levin’s conference. Perhaps he will value my point of view as a third-party. Please excuse the language as I am also a retired Master Chief and have a penchant for the four-letter word.

The so-called academics: These are the same people that went ape**** over a friendly and fun list of the top 50 Civil War books on CWI. (What looked like a fun and nostalgic look at our personal favorites suddenly turned into a critical analysis of the evils of the Golden Book of The Civil War.) These are the same people that appear to take others to task for printing positive Confederate material, yet turn around and do the like approach with Union perspectives. (This happens time and time again and is a disservice to both sides when it appears in such hypocrite ways.) These are the same people that criticize southern heritage groups for their flags, license plates, commemorations and tributes to their ancestors. (Who are they to say how one should honor their ancestors?)

This is not to say that they are bad people or that they are not good at their jobs. Maybe some of this is in fact, their jobs, but it’s not that difficult to see how some people may look at them from a distance with distaste. That said, you amatuers can learn a great deal from these professionals and the door swings both ways. Don’t be so defensive and don’t be so **** insecure to approach them. I think most teachers love to teach and would leap at an opportunity to share their knowledge.

Don’t judge the whole. You may have been treated rudely by an academic in the past, but that isn’t a fair barometer for all is it? Teachers, you may have run into some real dip****’s pretending to be subject matter experts, but that too is not an accurate census of this crowd. They know their stuff too, they just remain personally attached to it.

In the end both sides of this argument have merit and both of you should be able to recognize and respect one another despite it. In the navy we have a saying that is appropriate for this occasion. Never **** another sailor off as he may be the one holding your life-jacket one day. Carry on!

I wish I could have said it better myself. This latest 'exchange' of course comes with the territory of editorial blogging, but frankly, it’s the exact reason why I am rapidly losing my desire to do it. In fact, I am seriously debating limiting future posts to simply essays and project updates. My apologies to my regular readers. I'll get back to posting the good stuff soon. I want people to feel uplifted when they come here, not angry. And that goes for me too.

First off, I’m VERY curious why no one has blogged on this yet… I’m just beginning to get back into the swing of things at the office and I am slowly-but-surely catching up with what is going on in the ‘real’ world (as much as I can stomach that is). Needless to say, I was surprised to read that a recent genealogical research project into the presidential candidates' ancestry has discovered that Barack Obama has a prolific lineage that includes a distant relation to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. According to CNN’s website, Lee was a fifth-cousin to one of Obama’s ancestors making Obama his fifth cousin, eight times removed. Their common ancestors were Richard Eltonhead of Eltonhead, Lancashire, and Ms. Anne Sutton. Another great Virginian, President James Madison is also a relation. That's extremely interesting to me. I would love to know what Obama thinks of being a "descendant" of 'Marse Robert.' And I’m curious to know if these newfound relations will affect the voting public’s opinions in any way.

Harvey Frommer is a longtime mentor of mine, and probably the best baseball historian that I have ever known. He has a new release coming out titled “Remembering Yankee Stadium: An Oral And Narrative History” (Abrams/Stewart, Tabori and Chang) and I for one cannot wait to add it to my collection. Harvey has written over 30 books on the history of our national pastime, many focusing on my beloved Yankees, and his work is always educational and entertaining. Here is some additional info on this new book from Harvey’s Press Release:

This is the only book with a foreword by Bob Sheppard, Yankee legendary public address announcer. It mixes and matches voices from as far back as the 1920s to  today providing the perspective of the rank and file who give the nitty gritty that the you won’t find from heavier names, those who will say over and over again: “When I stepped out onto the Stadium . . .” Instead, nearly one hundred voices give the book a sense of place and time and people. There are Hall of Famers, bat boys, fans, vendors, famed broadcasters and authors, Yankee players and managers as well as their rivals, and long-time observers of the Stadium scene. There are game calls from legends like Mel Allen, Frank Messer, Phil Rizzuto, Michael Kay. There is the smell of mustard and the smell of jockstraps, the feel of being crushed, eight deep on the downtown D train after a game. And a sense of place you won't find in any "official" history enhanced by more than 200 images, many of them archival and many never before published in a book. There are ticket stubs, baseball cards, program covers, scorecards. And there is a large “Stadiumology” section with stats and facts, first and lasts.

I plan on writing a detailed review of this book in the near future so stay tuned. For more information on this and other Frommer titles, please visit Harvey’s official website.

Tonight I received an angry email from a rather disturbed reader, who took offense to my recent posting about the widening gap between academic and amateur historians. After calling me a bible-thumping hack (thank you by the way), he also accused me of being a “Lost Causer.” I have always been a little confused about people’s interpretations of that term so I did a quick Google search and came up with Wikipedia’s definition which is as follows:

The “Lost Cause” is the name commonly given to a literary and intellectual movement that sought to reconcile the traditional white society of the Southern United States to the defeat of the Confederate States of America in the Civil War of 1861–1865. Those who contributed to the movement tended to portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and most of the Confederacy's leaders as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry, defeated by the Union armies not through superior military skill, but by overwhelming force, and tended to condemn Reconstruction. Some of the main tenets of the Lost Cause movement were that:

1. Confederate generals such as Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson represented the virtues of Southern nobility, as opposed to most Northern generals, who were characterized as possessing low moral standards, and who subjected the Southern civilian population to such indignities as Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864.

2. Losses on the battlefield were inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower. Losses were also the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee. (The Lost Cause focused mainly on Lee and the eastern theater of operations.)

3. Defense of states' rights, rather than preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the war. Secession was a justifiable constitutional response to Northern cultural and economic aggressions against the Southern way of life.

After reading these qualifications I must say that I am apparently guilty as charged. BTW: None of these tenets are necessarily bad things and the majority of these beliefs albeit bias, are not that far off base. It also does not mean that one cannot have a strong affection for the Southern Confederacy’s perspective and still respect their northern counterparts. I do.

This reminds me that April is Confederate History Month. Don’t forget to acknowledge the courage and sacrifice of the boys in gray. They deserve to be remembered too. And to the gentleman that took the time to email me with his displeasure. Thank you Sir. I value your patronage of my blog and I hope that you will come again. I may be, as you say a Lost Causer, but I am also appreciative of your opinion and feedback.

It appears that an opportunity to do some teaching has come about. (Note the irony after I posted about the ever-widening gap between ‘elitist’ academics and we ‘uneducated’ folks.) Anyway, I've never considered myself an educator by any means, (I still don’t), but I do love speaking to people about the subject of spiritually during the Civil War. This afternoon, I received an email from a gentleman named Rudy Halleck who runs an organization called Saved-Sons here in Virginia. Saved-Sons publishes Christian teaching materials and helps book guest speakers for church retreats and dinners.

Their goal is to provide young men with a religious-perspective that they probably do not get in school. I have been asked to speak at a fall retreat about the “Great Southern Revival” and its impact on the spiritual lives of Confederate soldiers. It’s a great topic that I look forward to tackling and what makes it even neater is the fact that I will be speaking at a campsite pavilion. In fact, I don’t have to worry about creating a PowerPoint, as there will be no electrical-outlets.

Beginning in the fall of 1863, this event, sometimes referred to as "The Great Southern Revival," was in full progress throughout the Army of Northern Virginia. Before it was interrupted by Gen. U.S. Grant's attack in May 1864, approximately seven thousand soldiers-10 percent of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s force-were reportedly converted. Dr. Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., author of A Shield and Hiding Place: The Religious Life of the Civil War Armies, reports that “The best estimates of conversions in the Union forces place the figure between 100,000 and 200,000 men-about 5-10 percent of all individuals engaged in the conflict. In the smaller Confederate armies, at least 100,000 were converted. Since these numbers include only ‘conversions’ and do not represent the number of soldiers actually swept up in the revivals-a yet more substantial figure-the impact of revivals during the Civil War surely was tremendous.”

I certainly hope that I can come up with a presentation that reflects this most blessed event and is worthy of these gentlemen's attention. According to the Saved-Sons' mission statement in the email: “Saved-Sons recognizes the need to give today’s teenagers positive role-models that are worth looking up to. In today’s fallen society, impressionable youth are far too often exposed to celebrities, athletes and music artists with less than desirable character traits. As parents and mentors, it is our job to introduce them to more holy and wholesome subjects that are worthy of their admiration and emulation. Unfortunately, our public school system has pushed Christian values out of the classroom and it has been left up to us to fill this void. Saved-Sons provides scripture-based lesson plans that can be used at youth group meetings, church retreats, and after school bible-study programs. While it is not our intent to interfere with any school’s existing program, we are hoping to add a godly viewpoint that will enrich the education of those wishing to know more.”

I’ll keep you updated on where this goes. Saved-Sons is a start-up and they hope to have a website soon. I will add their link when it is. I sent a tentative acceptance email, but do not have any specific details yet. I am hoping that is doesn’t conflict with my schedule. It would be a blessing indeed to speak to a group of young men on a subject that is so inspirational and enlightening.

[UPDATE: I did want to add that Saved-Sons discovered me thanks to my book 'The Southern Cross' being carried and showcased in the Re-enactors Missions For Jesus Christ (RMJC) bookstore and their booth at this past weekend's Civil War Seminar at Liberty University. My thanks to them for selling my title and therefore, promoting my witness.]

Some of you may remember a fun feature that I was commissioned to do for the Jan/Feb issue of Civil War Historian magazine in which I selected my Top-10 Confederate Generals. READ PDF. The goal of this piece was to generate some reader feedback and I was very honored to have a descendant of General John Bell Hood send a letter to the editor voicing his gratitude for me including his ancestor. Gen. Hood in my opinion has always been underrated due to his lack of success in the western theater. However, his contributions in the east, along with his physical sacrifice in the name of the South's Cause cannot be forgotten. In addition to the wonderful conversations that this article has opened, I am most thankful for being made an honorary member of the John Bell Hood Society, a membership that I will treasure always. Below is the letter that is running in the March/April issue of CWH:

Dear Civil War Historian,

Author Michael Aubrecht’s inclusion of General John Bell Hood in “The Top Ten Confederate Generals” feature in the January/February 2008 issue of Civil War Historian surely raised the eyebrows of many—and the ire of some—in the Civil War history community. Mr. Aubrecht wrote in the “Criteria” section: “Another admirable trait was Hood’s fearless admission of faults when defeated; in addition to accepting the blame for tactical failures, he routinely praised his men in after-action reports.

”Many modern Civil War authors—most prominently Wiley Sword—have gone to great efforts to paint General Hood as a drug-addicted, lovelorn, commander who connived his way into command of the Army of Tennessee, and after launching a quixotic campaign into Tennessee, intentionally slaughtered his own troops at Franklin in a fit of vengeful rage over the failure at Spring Hill, and then blamed the defeat on his soldiers. To succeed in this illusion, these authors have concealed virtually all of the sizeable amount of historical evidence and testimony of both Hood and his supporters, while giving center stage to Hood’s critics and detractors.

Many Civil War enthusiasts will be surprised to learn of the following comments by Hood, none of which appear in Sword’s acclaimed book, The Confederacy’s Last Hurrah, or any other major books on Hood’s Tennessee Campaign or the Army of Tennessee.

In his postwar memoirs, Advance and Retreat, Hood praised the “extraordinary gallantry” of the soldiers of the Army of Tennessee at Franklin, and compared them to his own namesake brigade, the famous Hood’s Texas Brigade: “The attack (at Franklin), which entailed so great a sacrifice of life, had become a necessity as imperative as that which impelled Gen. Lee to order the assault at Gaines’ Mill, when our troops charged across an open space, a distance of one mile, under a most galling fire of musketry and artillery, against an enemy heavily entrenched. The heroes in that action fought not more gallantly than the soldiers of the Army of Tennessee upon the fields of Franklin.”

Hood praised his soldiers in his Official Report on the Battle of Franklin, writing, “Never did troops fight more gallantly” and in his resignation letter wrote, “When the fortunes of war were against us, the same faithful soldiers remained true to their flag, and with rare exceptions followed it in retreat as they had borne it in advance.”

Hood’s affection for his men is well documented in historical records, but rarely revealed in modern Civil War literature. Major James W. Ratchford of General D.H. Hill’s staff recalled a scene immediately after the Battle of Gaines’ Mill: “Early in the same night . . . I came upon General Hood sitting on a cracker box. As I approached, he looked up at me, and I could see tears streaming down his cheeks. His brigade had lost heavily, and all about him were the dead and wounded. I spoke to him and he replied brokenly, ‘Just look here Major, at all these dead and suffering men, and every one of them as good as I am, yet I am untouched.’”

Regarding acceptance of blame for the failures of the Tennessee Campaign, Hood wrote in his memoirs, “Whilst I failed utterly to give battle at Spring Hill…” even though Major James Ratchford wrote: “He (Hood) said further that he sent staff officers to Cheatham several times, urging him to place troops across the pike to intercept the fleeing Federals. Major Blanton and Major Hamilton, both of Hood’s staff, each told me personally that he had carried the orders to Gen Cheatham. That grand old hero (Gen. Hood) died without ever defending himself, allowing the world to believe that he was responsible for the failure.”

In his resignation letter Hood wrote of the Tennessee Campaign, “I am alone responsible for its conception . . .”

Near the end of the Nashville retreat Private W.G. Davenport of the 6th Texas Cavalry wrote that General Hood rode up, “Looking worn and tired but with kindly words for all, said to the soldiers, ‘Boys, this is all my fault.’”

Diarist Mary Chesnut wrote of Hood in her Diary From Dixie: “How plainly he spoke out these dreadful words. ‘My defeat and discomfiture!’ ‘My army is destroyed.’ ‘My losses!’ He said he had nobody to blame but himself.”

The Roman historian Cicero wrote that a historian “ . . . shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.” Unfortunately, many modern Civil War authors ignore Cicero’s charge, damaging not only scholarship, but also the reputations of historical characters.

Congratulations to Michael Aubrecht for searching for the truth, and having the courage to express what many will consider heresy.

Sam Hood

Collateral descendent of General Hood
President of the John Bell Hood Historical Society

One of the few ‘positives’ from my recent recovery was the amount of free-time that I had to lay in bed and watch Civil War documentaries. Over the last 5 weeks, I have done an excellent job of tuning out the modern world (I have no idea what’s going on in the painful world of politics and reality television) and embracing my new favorite media outlet: Fairfax Public Television. A few months ago, we switched our phone, cable and internet over to Verizon’s FIOS, which is their new fiber optic network. It is amazing and I have web-surfing capabilities 10x’s faster than my office. I also have access to Northern VA television which is rich in Civil War material.

The gem of their catalog is the “Blue Ridge PBS Civil War Series,” which features a 10-episode collection that is written and hosted by Dr. James I. Robertson, Jr., Alumni Distinguished Professor of History at Virginia Tech and William C. Davis, the Director of Programs for Virginia's Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech. To read a detailed abstract of each episode and to get ordering information, visit the Blue Ridge PBS Website.

I have personally discussed the possibility of contributing some time and talent in hopes of creating a Fredericksburg series with our local experts and there may be a project on the horizon. We have such an amazing body of gifted and brilliant historians here, I know we could create something educational, entertaining, and enlightening.

Maybe it is because I am once again working on a baseball book (which BTW, is coming along great), but the stateside Opening Day of the 2008 Major League Baseball season could not have come any sooner. With an off-season that was anything but promising from the steroids scandal being re-ignited by the Mitchell Report to my tarnished favorite, Roger Clemens, testifying in front of Congress, its time to get back in the ballpark and play ball. Tonight, I'll be watching the night game between Atlanta and Washington on ESPN with my youngest son (NY opens tomorrow at 1) and in a few weeks, I'll take be taking my oldest to a game up in D.C. at the new National's ballpark. Enjoy whatever game you're watching. I know we will. GO YANKEES! Last year, I believe I posted excerpts from my essay for Baseball-Almanac on Opening Day. This year I’d like to share some insights on the 7th-Inning Stretch.

Origins of the Seventh-Inning Stretch by Michael Aubrecht
(Originally written for Baseball-Almanac. Copyright 2005.)

It is perhaps the most mundane, yet physically rewarding moment of every baseball game. A few precious minutes in which the hours of excruciating stress and anticipation are momentarily lifted for a well-deserved break. It is a time to stand, to dance, to sing and to take care of "nature's calling." It is the Seventh-Inning Stretch and it has become as important a tradition in America's Pastime as the National Anthem and the first pitch.

Even today, the origins of the Seventh-Inning Stretch are less historical in their theories and more of an urban legend. Over the years, one has been traced back to one of America's forgotten leaders. Recently, another hypothesis has emerged after documentation was discovered that may or may not provide the answer to the question, "Who invented the Seventh-Inning Stretch and Why?" In order to "answer" that question, let us look at two of the more popular theories.

The first (and more popular) response that has been presented by countless baseball historians gives sole credit to the 27th president of the United States, William Howard Taft. One of America's less memorable leaders, Taft was an obese man, tipping the scales at over 300 pounds. He probably spent more energy following his favorite game of baseball than he did on running the country. Also credited with being the first U.S. President to throw out the first pitch, Taft attended the Opening Day game against the Washington Senators and Philadelphia Athletics on April 14, 1910 at Griffith Stadium.

According to reports, as the game continued to drag on, the six-foot-two president grew increasingly uncomfortable in the small wooden chair, which was no doubt overtaxed under the weight of its presidential patron. By the middle of the seventh inning, Taft was unable to bear the pain any longer and stood up to stretch his aching legs. In those days, the leader of the free world commanded a tremendous amount of reverence and as his fellow spectators noticed him rising, they followed his lead as a sign of respect. A few minutes later, Taft returned to his seat and the game resumed.

Thus the Seventh-Inning Stretch was born! True? Maybe - maybe not. As often happens with the constant research and rewriting of history, experts sometimes come upon less romantic tales that may be more accurate, but ultimately less entertaining.

Take for instance a manuscript dated 1869 that was discovered by historians. In it, Harry Wright of the Cincinnati Red Stockings describes a break in the play of a ballgame that sounds very familiar. He wrote, "The spectators all arise between halves of the seventh inning, extend their legs and arms and sometimes walk about. In so doing they enjoy the relief afforded by relaxation from a long posture upon hard benches."

One of the most celebrated events of the Seventh-Inning Stretch is the traditional singing of "Take Me Out To The Ballgame". It was written by a very successful songwriter named Jack Norworth who scribbled the lyrics on a scrap piece of paper while riding the train to Manhattan in New York. For decades both real singers and celebrity "wannabe's" have belted out the tune with thousands of fans in the bleachers providing backup.

Following the attack on America on September 11th, Major League Baseball rose to the occasion as part of the healing process and added "God Bless America" to its song list. After taking center stage with patriotic tributes throughout the remainder of the regular season, the national pastime returned to the Big Apple to host the World Series. With the city's emotions running high and the American flag pulled from the wreckage of the WorldTrade Center flying overhead, President George W. Bush threw out the first pitch, symbolizing the unwavering strength of America. In the seventh inning, world-renowned Irish Tenor Ronan Tynan stepped forward to sing, as a giant American Flag was unfurled on the field. In that instant, the mysterious and "meaningless stretch" of a baseball game became a symbolic vigil for all.

Today, the Seventh-Inning Stretch has returned in part to a fun and carefree event that features blaring "jock jam" music, hot dog races, team mascots shooting t-shirts into the crowd and the opportunity to grab a fresh beer, some nachos and "hit the can."

Was it an overweight president or simply a group of fans looking for a break? Nobody knows for sure. Still, despite the debate over its origin, we can all agree that it always feels good to get up and stretch.

Today at Sunday services, I was handed a rather large envelope and told that it held some items that I may be interested in. After opening it, I discovered that it was indeed filled with some historical treasure, all pertaining to the history of the Fredericksburg Presbyterian Church.

What made this package exceptionally special was who the items had belonged to. For those who are unfamiliar with the name Elizabeth Morrison, she is one of Spotsylvania County’s most prized citizens. Mrs. Morrison had a beautiful farm called “Hazelwild,” which is still in operation and now hosts the Elizabeth Morrison Equestrian Center. She was also a Christian woman, who in 1984, allowed the charter members of my congregation from Spotsylvania Presbyterian Church to hold worship services in her barn, affectionately referred to as the “Cow Palace.” Her legacy still remains today and she has been celebrated for both her graciousness and generosity.

Apparently some members of my church were recently cleaning out some of her things and came upon these wonderful pieces of history that will definitely find their way into some future project of mine. The package included a priceless Church Directory from 1913, a Yearbook from the 1920’s (Note: my church’s yearly financial budget for 2008 is just over $700,000. operating expenses in the ‘20’s are listed at $4000.), 2 Photo Directories (from the 50’s and 60’s), and a personalized copy of “History of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, VA 1808-1976” by Edward Alvery Jr. I had borrowed a copy of this title (which was in limited circulation and is rare) when writing “Houses of the Holy,” but to now be the custodian of Mrs. Morrison’s copy is a privilege indeed. I will cherish all of these materials and they will be a welcome addition to my collection.

The inscription reads:

To Elizabeth Morrison,

With deep appreciation for your generosity, patience and forbearance, while sharing Hazelwild in the development of the Spotsylvania Presbyterian Church.

The organizing ministers,
Rev. H. Carson Rhyne, Jr.
Rev. Dr. Clyde Carter
Christmas, 1985

Recently there have been some postings around the blogosphere about the pros and cons of academic historians blogging, as well as reports from some in the field who are participating in various seminars examining the study of the War Between the States. One blogger over at Civil Warriors even mentioned attending a weekend conference in New York City to discuss the “state of Civil War military history scholarship.” As one who is clearly not part of this demographic, I can’t help but wonder what exactly are these events and why do they hold them?

Please don’t misunderstand me, many of the attendees and speakers at these events have forgotten more about Civil War history than I’ll ever know. In fact, their works usually provide priceless reference to the rest of us ‘blue-collar’ historians who write books and articles for the normal, or casual, Civil War reader. (I am not, nor will I ever be in their league. Therefore do not take this as an attack on anyone personally. My point in this post is in regards to the ever-widening divide that exists between the ‘schooled’ and the ‘un-schooled’ historians.)

Many of these conferences and seminars can sometimes come off as being a bit elitist and arrogant. Sometimes people who participate in these events echo that sentiment in their comments. (Ironically, many of the best rangers, guides, speakers, authors and all around 'experts' that I know are anything but academics and have zero pedigrees to boot.)

I guess my confusion lies in why do these history teachers feel the need to hold these conventions and sit around discussing the state of anything? What has changed so drastically in the last 140+ years in the presentation of the War Between the States? And what exactly defines scholarship? To me it represents an expertise that is earned by the study and examination of a subject. So, do you have to be an academic to accomplish this? Is there any more (or less) expertise sitting at a roundtable in a symposium, or around a campfire at a re-enactment?

Perhaps questioning and challenging everything that has come before them gives this generation of professors the feeling that they too are contributing something to the legacy of the subject matter. Still, other teachers don't do this. I'm not aware of any Science or English instructors holding conferences to discuss the state of their subjects.

I guess my issue is that they always appear so negative to me, preaching the idea that everyone else is ignorant and wrong. I am also bothered by the tendency they have to try and tear people down. These are the people that say things like "Yeah Robert E. Lee was great, but not nearly as great as you think and here are the reasons why." What real purpose does that serve?

Adding to their distance, most of the individuals in the academic realm seem to research, author, and publish material solely for their peers. I say that as you could be fairly certain that John Q. Public walking into the history section at Borders, or bringing his wife and kids to a weekender at Gettysburg is probably not that interested in reading some 1000+-page dissertation on a long-neglected topic that challenges hundreds of years or so of historical memory. University press releases that require a degree to understand are not what these people read. Its teachers writing to impress other teachers in my opinion.

Most tourists and/or those with a passing fancy want to read something that is inspiring and exciting that will hold their short-attention-span and leave them feeling that they’ve learned something about a subject that they hadn’t thought about since they were in grade school. Unfortunately, these are also the people that are far too often ignored by the academics who criticize the rest of us for catering to them. It’s a shame too as I think John Q. Public could really benefit by the knowledge of these historical "brainiacks" if they could just come down to our level. I have heard some of these teachers use the terms ‘same old’ and ‘traditional tales’ to describe what the rest of us read and write. I for one say what is wrong with that? And why not?

I’ll put on my baseball cap for a moment and use this as an example. As one who has written 400+ studies on Major League Baseball history over the years for Baseball-Almanac I ask you, the reader this. Would you rather examine the Box Score for the game in which Babe Ruth supposedly called his shot, or would you prefer to read the exciting tale that tells the story of this amazing feat? Certainly some will want the statistics (and we always include them), but the majority of everyday people would rather read the tale. Those people are the ones that we need to write to. Those are the people that we need to keep interested so they will come visit our battlefields and museums and introduce their kids to the subject. Those people were us, and we are a direct descendant of them. They will keep history alive too, not just the academics.

Let the teachers hold their conferences to discuss the state of the union and write their titanic-tomes that can be used as booster seats. Let them criticize everything that has come before them and even the work that we are doing now. I’m banking on John Q. Public and John Q. Jr. to save our battlefields and make the susquentennial a success. To those of us (academic and non) who study this stuff all the time, don't forget Mr. Public and his son. They are the regular people that we need to reach and keep reaching if the stories of the Great Divide are to survive for generations to come.

UPDATE 4/2: Two of our fellow bloggers have responded to my post.
Regardless of our difference of opinion, I still appreciate their comments and am linking them here.

Civil War Memory: He Knows Not What He Speaks Of or Why Civil War Historians Should Blog (Part 2)

Civil Warriors: As I was saying … or, here we go again … (I explain the poorly planned genesis of this post in the Comments section.)

There is one reader response that I want to share from a man who knows what he is talking about: Read Here